[rjsimper]

I understand why Rupert O'Neal, Tom Doak, Donald Trump, or the membership director at Sugarloaf Mountain would care about the rankings.  Business reasons are certainly understandable.

But what about the rest of you?

If anything has proven true since rankings were first introduced

1) There will ALWAYS be controversy/disagreements
2) Courses you like will be underrated in your eyes, courses you don't like will be overrated
3) The same thing is going to happen next time.

The possible explanations I see are:

1) You want to believe that you've got better notches in your belt than you really do
2) You want to believe architecture matters more than it does
3) You just like to argue

It's can't possibly be that we want the rankings to be perfectly reflective of reality, because it's a subjective exercise by nature (Tom Doak's point about the GD attempt to show objectivity is well-taken) but we all know it's subjective and it's never going to be right, and even if it is ever "right" to you, it'll be wrong to 99% of the others out there.

So why care so much? Am I missing any possible reasons? Assuming you have no business interest in the fact that a guy sitting in an airport in Omaha right now believes that Dalhousie is the best course in MO, who gives a damn?

[Mark Pritchett]

Ryan,

I think the bottom line is people love an argument and enjoy discussing the merit of things.  Would this forum even exist if all 1,500 of us agreed on the Top 100 courses? Now course owners, architects, club members, etc. care about the rankings for other reasons as well.

Mark

[rjsimper]

Ryan,

I think the bottom line is people love an argument and enjoy discussing the merit of things.  Would this forum even exist if all 1,500 of us agreed on the Top 100 courses? Now course owners, architects, club members, etc. care about the rankings for other reasons as well.

Mark

I don't doubt that, but we're FAR beyond discussion...not just this time, but people take visceral offense to certain omissions or inclusions.  That's much more than just discussion.  You can tell me you think LACC is better than Riviera, and while I will disagree with you, I would not be offended and openly question your screening process.  It doesn't change the golf course for me.

[Mark Pritchett]

Ryan,

Well said.  I guess many here are more passionate than most with regards to what is "best" and advocate accordingly.  The rankings are completely meaningless to me, yet I love to read them and discuss/argue about them.  Not sure why other than it provides fodder to discuss an issue I am interested in.

Mark

[Mike_Cirba]

Ryan,

If I might, I think Corey Miller's post on another related thread expresses a particularly valid segement of opinion;

Perhaps I have a perspective a little different than many on this site as my club was involved in a restoration at Sleepy Hollow with Gil Hanse and George Bahto.  I was a participant in the process.

I don't know of Jeff's involvement in the process at QR and though I have never seen the course I am confident with the tree work, firming of the turf, commitment by those in power, new Super, and the involvement of Gil, the course is surely better.  I mean weren't they "fixing" Rees?

I also think my home course is clearly better and I was a little surprised we did not make Golfweek top 100 classic and we moved down in the NYS list on golf Digest.

I will also preface this by stating that the friends I have who are raters, I have the utmost respect for including Dr. Evil .  I would love to have the view that Steve has "who cares" but that is a little difficult when you are dealing with memberships that are generally loathe to make these sorts of changes.

People put a lot of time into getting this stuff right, and it certainly is not fun politically.  I would love to be in a position like FH where these ratings are a "who cares".  But the fact is, since Gil left the property, my goal has been to not only finish everything, the little detail work etc etc, but also to somehow memorialize the changes so future members don't seek "change". 

It is a little harder IMO when places like QR, and SH are not "rewarded".  So yes it bothers me because I know the average member might actually see things like the average GD rater and have no qualms about making ill suited changes in the future.

[Jim Colton]

Ryan,

  I think it's all 3 of your explanations.  Personally, I'm trying to figure out if there's something wrong with the system that causing them to look off.  Golf Digest calls its list 'the Gold Standard' so I don't think it's unfair to investigate whether there are significant flaws in the system.  I'm fine with the list being a subjective ranking of the collective opinion of its raters, that's exactly what it should be.  But I have a feeling the way they are compiling this information into one overall ranking is not really reflecting what they are trying to reflect.

[Joe Hancock]

Simply this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Htxg_J0JZJk

 

[Kalen Braley]

Joe,

I love the way you usually put things for the common joe to understand them.  I guess thats all one needs to know... 

[Greg Tallman]

Same reasons we love to debate college football rankings...

subjectivity, passion, allegiances... predisposition to "debating"(aka arguing)

[Tom_Doak]

Ryan:

Aside from your supposed business reasons, I've always cared about these rankings because I would like for them to set a good example for other people to learn about architecture.  So little editorial space in the golf magazines (all of them!) is devoted to architecture, that if these ratings are going to be the bulk of it, I think it would be useful for the rankings to help educate people about what good golf architecture is like.

I don't think they do it very well now.  GOLF DIGEST devotes one paragraph to each new course, and says precious little about what makes them special; GOLF Magazine does even less.  GOLFWEEK used to print Brad's analysis of a course every week or two, but it looks like that's been crowded out in their new format.

[rjsimper]

Same reasons we love to debate college football rankings...

subjectivity, passion, allegiances... predisposition to "debating"(aka arguing)

No doubt people love to argue. However, the difference here, though, is the college football rankings actually MEAN something - BCS matchups, National Champion, etc.

Other than being able to say "We're Number One!", there is no gold medal conferred every 2 years for being Golf Digest's victor.  

[Mark Pritchett]

BCS rankings mean absolutely nothing!

[Dan Herrmann]

The Hyundai Genesis won the 2009 Car of the Year award.  I really like this car, but I know some folks hate it.  Is it good car in spite of divergent opinions?   It all depends on your built-in prejudices, likes, and dislikes.

The problem with ratings is like kids in high school who care about being popular.  Remember back - it really mattered to a lot of us.  Today, at 49, I couldn't care less. 

Neither our finest clubs, nor our cheapest munis should give a rip about these rankings.

If the mags want to do it right, they should have golf course architects and serious students of GCA history do the rankings, regardless of their handicap.

[George Pazin]

I couldn't care less and generally don't even look in on the rankings threads. I will say, the fact that the same courses popped up at the top of every list was what made me start to look into architecture in the first place, but I haven't given them much thought since. I did used to find many of the arguments about rankings pretty funny, but now I find them tiresome.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ryan,

I had the same thought, but didn't care enough about rankings (and ranking threads) to start a thread about it.

I like my courses ranked, of course, and have some that are.  I have some I think should be ranked higher.  The flip side of ranking variability is that its more likely one of my (or any gca) courses will get ranked somewhere.  For instance, Cowboys flopped in the GD Best New rankings (poor greens the first year, even if maintenance isn't supposed to count) but I can still say it was Best New for Zagat's! 

[tlavin]

It's just a simple way to evaluate the relative merits and demerits of golf courses.  It's also a nice ego-thing for people who are members at highly rated courses.  It also provides good fodder for disagreement and concurrence.  I don't place much stock in the ratings of various magazines, but I surely do pay attention to them.

[Greg Tallman]

BCS rankings mean absolutely nothing!

Especially when you lose to PITT in the last game of the regular season.

Then lose your homegrown coach to Michigan a week later...

then hire Gomer Pyle...

ahhhhhh never mind!

[ChipRoyce]

Earlier in my education around GCA, the rankings did matter. The list to me was a guide  / compass to learning about great courses (and some of the prestige of some of those great clubs.)

Now that I'm a little more educated and know what I like, I can't say I care too much. There's courses I'm excited to go visit some day, some I can't say I'd bother for.

I'm always interested when new courses get on the list that I'm not familiar with - I single those out as ones to learn more about

[TEPaul]

"Re: Why do you care so much about the rankings?"


Ryan:

The short answer for me is---I don't, never have. 

[Rory Connaughton]

I think the rankings generate so much discussion in part because of the perceived flaws in the process and the absurd results that follow.  For example, there is no way that Rolling Green should fall out of the top 25 in PA.  It could be argued that it is top 10 in PA or higher.  From my perspective the only way it could conceivably fall out of the top 25 in state is if not enough raters bothered to play which I suspect explains the drop.  Now the folks at RG may not care one way or another and that is great.  But no ranking of golf courses in PA that does not include RG has a serious credibility problem. 
Don't hold yourself out as the gold standard if your process does not ensure that courses that plausibly fall within your top 100 or best in state don't get anywhere close to consistent attention

[Dan Herrmann]

Rory,
RG is one of the better courses I've ever played.  To not have it in the top 25 in PA shows how bad some of these rankings are.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()